Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

I'm with the MLBPA because it makes perfect sense not to change the rules mid-game. But, I am also not sold on instant replay, even with all the mistakes. Camera angles aren't always perfect and the camera can, in fact, lie. What if a call is overruled and the camera got it wrong? It can easily happen. I am resigned to it eventually being implemented but hope it is never used for routine calls. Games are already too slow and this will make it worse.

The moment we see a blown home run call that cost a team a postseason berth or a World Series, the outcry for replay will grow. Its long overdue that baseball should have instant replay. Every sport has used instant replay. We now live in a world where we have advance technology that everybody uses. I do think that baseball is rushing to get instant replay in right now.

They should come up with a comprehensive plan and rule before they implement it like who is doing the review? And what they will review? Are the umps going to do it on the field like the NFL does. Is someone going to watch TV in the press box and make a ruling or are the going to do it like the NHL does and call Toronto (which in this case would be Park Avenue).
I think they should finish the season they way it was started

Instant replay will start with review of home runs and fair/foul issues. What happens next? Do we end up with the electronic tennis devices scattered arond the field and stop play every inning to review the tapes? Every 3-2 pitch in the 8th or 9th inning is up for debate?

Yes, you cannot argue ball/strike now, but with the technology possible available for use, it will happen. The game will become even slower and resemble that other sport as described by George Will "...football is a mistake. It combines the two worst elements of American life - violence and commitee meetings."

The problem with most ideas based on a good premise is that they set the stage for something even worse. Let's have MLB review the entire policy in the off-season without using it now.

Don't add Instant Reply in the middle of a season.

And make it like the NFL...managers get to toss a hanky or a pine tar rag on the field. Once per game should be sufficient.

Sandy, I addressed a lot of the questions you asked in my Sunday Insider column, with the Giles headline - under "Recent Columns" on the left.

I agree with Bob T. that MLB should take even more time and conduct a thorough review. Does someone have a hidden agenda with a goal of getting instant replay review of routine calls at bases or, down the road, balls and strikes? I don't believe an expansion of this initiative to other types of calls hasn't been discussed and isn't being eyed. Once this comes in we will never be able to get rid of it. The DH comes to mind. I don't think the technology is fool proof and I think arguments will still occur. If I could be sure it would only be used for HR calls and maybe outfield traps, I might be able to live with it, but I don't trust Selig and I don't trust the owners. The mention that other sports have a similar review of controversial plays is a total non-starter with me. Baseball should never emulate another sport.

Jim:

Baseball has emulated football by divisional setups and wild card teams and in many other areas for four decades. Hopefully this is one NFL idea that they will resist implementing in full.

You can't ration the amount of challenges if the purpose of replay is to simply get the call right.

If Baseball is going to have instant replay, they should at least tested out in the minor leagues first and then use it starting next season. Selig and company are rushing to get replay in this year. If we see a blown home run call that cost a team in the playoffs or World Series, the outcry will grow.
Damon is playing and Giambi will DH. Girardi wants offense, and with Melky not hitting and with Moose on the mound tonight, this is a desperated move by Girardi to get the offense going.

Bob, I know baseball has followed the lead of all the other major sports in the divisional set-ups, wild cards, expanded playoffs, revenue sharing, etc. But, I am against it all. I am conservative by nature and I don't like change for the sake of change. Now I understand with expansion we needed to have two divisions, but I could have done without three. I also could have done without some of the expansion, but it was a cash cow for the owners. I know that I'm in the minority on this stuff, but it's how I feel. (I'd also like the mound raised and the strike zone called from arm pits to knees.)

Just because baseball has followed everyone else on other "innovations" doesn't mean they should continue doing it in this case. I already have to endure NBA arena-like music in MLB parks. I've had enough.

Dennis, who will be behind the outcry?

Jim, I'll give you an example. Let's say its Game 7 of the World Series between the Cubs and the Rays. at Tropicana Field. Its the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs and a runner on and the Cubs leading by 1 run. Evan Longoria hits a shot down the leftfield line that hits the foul pole which clearly is a home run but the umpire rules it a foul ball Then all the umps huddle and don't change the call and Cubs win the World Series after 100 years. That type of play will cause fans to call for replay into baseball. Its going to take something like that to get replay into baseball.

Looking at what Ken told me to look at, it looks like the decision is going to take 5-10 minutes to get to. Someone in the central control room in New York will send the proper picture to the ballpark where an umpire on-site will make the decision. Because the umpires won't allow it unless it's their call. Just dandy :(

Sandy - we haven't discussed them, but the umpies union will have input. Granted they were destroyed by MLB in the past when they did a kamikze walkout, but thye would become relevant again.

I have been to all the post-season Yankee games since 1996 and the playoffs and WS in 1976, 77 and 78. When there have been TV timeouts lasting 60 or 90 seconds, fans have started yelling and screaming for play to resume. If Sandy is right and instant replay delays a game for up to 10 minutes, there will be a riot.

In an interview with AP, Hank S. just opened the door to adding a veteran pitcher in 2009 if that's what it takes. He said the Yankees will be "extremely dangerous" next year. He blames this season's performance on injuries.

Football and hockey have both at times butchered instant replay. The Dallas Stars won when Brett Hull scored in the famous, "No Goal" game. Though many thought it was quite clear Hull's skate was in the crease when the puck was outside of the crease, they counted the goal anyway. Many believe that type of goal was dissallowed everytime but once. The once being in tripple OT in Game 6.

So I dont see how you start off a season without replay, and then have a storm of bad calls by umps and then go to replay??? The rules at the start of the season should be the rules at the end of the season would be my opinion on the matter. I remember the Sean Avery rule. I thought it was ridiculous that they can implement that in one game.

I think this is another example of Bud Selig trying a little too hard (All-Star game this time it counts, retiring Jackie Robinsons #) to make a splash. I actually cant believe they never thought of this before to be honest. But once the first pitch is thrown in Japan, then there should be no replay till next season.

Jim I don't know if you follow hockey or not, but this is how they do replays there. If there is a questionable goal call, sometimes play continues until a stoppage, then the stoppage occurs, the referee goes to the penalty box and makes a call to Toronto, where officials are sitting in front of a console of TVs. These guys look at all the angles of the tapes and eventually, sometimes 3-5 minutes later, make a decision on the goal.
I think for baseball, if Ken was right the way he describes it, it will take a couple of minutes for the guy in NY to find the right camera angle, then relay that angle to the stadium where it can be brought up to the umpires. THEN the umpires have to review it. How many times they need to look is anyone's guess--I say 10 at the least. If that isn't a more than 5 minute delay I'd be shocked, but think of all the $8 beers that can be sold and all the extra commercials on TV that can air. This year that equals to millions of Presidential campaign ads. :(

Thanks Sandy. I don't follow hockey. What you have written seems entirely reasonable (the length of time to get a decision). It's what I have always feared and one of the reasons why I am anti-replay. I think most people think these decisions involve merely some guy in the control room at the game watching a TV replay and calling down to the field seconds later with the correct call. But, it's much more involved and convoluted than that. It's going to change the flow of the game. I really don't care if other sports do it. I am purist when it comes to baseball. I know all the arguments in favor of it and know I am open to a charge of just being silly and turning my back on technology. Artificial turf and domed stadiums were also supposed to be improvements.

Hockey does replay great. They screwed up royally with the Brett Hull "No Goal" but otherwise its so much better than football. In football they still get the call wrong a lot of time. I dont see why they dont hire an Umpire and put him in NY to do the replays. I feel there is a conflict of interest in the NFL where you have to overturn your partners or yours call. I'm not at all saying they change their decision based on that, but it is a conflict of interest.